@cicerone imposter,
Quote:Just learned th a t Ron Paul is a racial bigot, and I once believed he had a good shot for my vote.
Which shows that you don't know anything about politicians and, as politics is what politicians do, nothing about politics.
Politicians have no principles outside of the sadistic impulse to control.
To get control in what is a "superbowl" clash of the two most determined politicians it is necessary to stitch together a coalition of voters large enough to win an election. Any principles are applied from the outside by the rules.
So racial bigotry will pick up votes. It will lose some as well. But the only lost votes that matter are those which were in the coalition before the bigotry was expressed. And it might win some votes that were previously not in the coalition. A calculation probably based on geography and tradition.
When Mr Paul's statements were made the attitude to racial bigotry was not as negative as it is now. He would have calculated at that time that racial bigotry would not bother most of his supporters enough for them to desert him and any votes picked up by expressing the bigotry are thus cost free. They increase the size of his coalition and supporters of his other policies, particularly his economic policies, will turn a blind eye to the bigotry in the service of him winning.
For a Republican the prospect of upsetting people with racial bigotry is not as strong as it is for a Democrat and the votes of such people are lost anyway. In general terms I mean. An individual response is worth one vote. He might lose your vote and pick up thousands of others.
To justify the bigotry back then it might be argued that if the bigotry exists in a significant proportion of the electorate with which he is concerned it is to be expected that a politician will express it. Our system requires that. An unexpressed bigotry leads to frustration far more than when the bigotry is expressed and defeated at the polls.
So back then Mr Paul was acting as a politician on a limited stage. What he said then has no relevance to the situation now on a larger stage where racial bigotry is a general vote loser. Or is thought to be in eastern, megalopolitan chattering-class circles the members of which earn multiples of what the average black man earns, have better access to health care and justice and don't practice miscegenation.
And the attention being given to what Mr Paul's team put out in his name nearly 20 years ago is objective proof of his political abilities. His attitude to the race issue will have been trimmed now to chime with the 2012 attitude on the national stage.
He probably filled his diapers full of **** three times a day once but we don't hold that against him.
I would think he is too old. His age means that the VP spot is a matter of greater importance than is the case with younger candidates.
